On Friday, July 3, 2020 3:37:34 AM MST Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 2:14 AM John M. Harris wrote:
> None of those bugs were release blocking, and none of them meant that x86
> wouldn't boot, or that core packages didn't work
When you add so many qualifiers, you are now admitting a) you did get a
response b) that things weren't perfect as you claimed. Those were merely
examples anyway. You can find plenty more in past discussions long before
the decision was made. You cannot possibly believe that an architecture
maintenance only involves a handful of bugs. It requires substantial
resources which aren't free. If you want to reduce your claim to the "many
bugs that did exist and added additional maintenance burden didn't affect
me personally therefore I disagree with the decision made", now that would
be a more reasonable statement if one didn't keep bringing it up in
These "qualifiers" are important.
1) Yes, I did get a response, as I said in the first email. The response
showed that there weren't any issues with the kernel or core packages at the
time it was dropped.
2) I never said it was perfect, nothing ever is.
I was involved in those past discussions. The bugs in these packages had no
effect on the majority of x86 users, they could still install Fedora, download
a DE of their choice, compile software, open a web browser, etc. There are
currently bugs filed against x64, does that mean we should drop support for
it? For a while, Firefox wasn't compiling on ARM. Does that mean we should
drop that arch?
It's very much related, because the same arguments that were used against x86
have been used here. See:
- It's "legacy"
- It has bugs filed against it
John M. Harris, Jr.